Modern Idea of India vs Dharmic ethos of India

European intellectuals exercised big influence upon the urbane, foreign educated impressionable leaders. There were few attempts in India to study local traditions, identify their strengths, weaknesses, relevance and utility. In Europe hostility between State and Church resulted in rise of secular movement in politics; this lead European thinkers to imagine a divorce from values and political structure of past.

Under Renaissance they ingested ideas from Greece, Egypt, Iran, India and Arabia, that weakened Church’s grip on mainstream discourse. Yet, power of language positively restrained their romanticism; the historical connections of Universities-colleges with Church worked as an institutional check upon reckless imaginative ideas and theories upon their identity which was firmly Abrahamic in tenor. Indian leaders with newly found power were blissfully unaware of such check and balance mechanism and they attempted all sorts of reckless experiments. The first government of independent India lead by Jawaharlal Nehru was indeed fueled by such aspirations.

Bureaucracy, army and judiciary, the local accomplices of erstwhile colonial rule could neither shrug off the colonialist disdain for natives, nor greed and cynicism of their master. Unlike the local rulers who owned people, land, and tradition, the colonial rule was to exploit colony so that coffers of the Queen are replenished. Whatever concern remained in them was largely owing to religious, social and cultural affiliation.

The British rule had initiated the process of benign disconnectedness by employing complex ritual of Anglicization. The new educated class took upon themselves the pious responsibility to fill in the ranks of clerks, soldiers and civil servants. New education under the benign control of missionaries was a mean to shame natives for their real and concocted flaws and weaknesses. It hoped to save native souls by directing their self-hatred towards ignorant and evil religion. This continued till independence of India.

The constitution of India came out as hotchpotch that was sold as a panacea to all economic and social disparities to newly enfranchised masses, urbanizing working-class and amateur political minds. It showed little understanding or appreciation of contribution of ancient local customs of Bharata; Relying upon ready-made classifications and divisions which were invented by the Mughals and British to facilitate their goals, progressive reforms were planned for the republic.

The much reviled traditional monarchies were better connected with people. For along with rule, they provided people moral-ethical universe, a sense of identity and purpose. Democratic set-up sans monarchies (which were guards of moral and ethical code) allowed leaders freedom to play God in colonial costumes. Even strengths of traditional social order that were recognized and utilized by the British were discarded in name of reforms which were often ill-conceived.

For example Varna-vyayastha minus undue privileges and rigidity could have been revived as an excellent vehicle of transference of knowledge, skill and employment. But following classical missionary antipathy it was demonized as evil; traditional Indian crafts and skills were sacrificed to favor industrialization and capital intensive technologies. No wonder mainstream like Nehru found Gandhi’s thoughts impractical, unscientific and even obscurantist.

The constitution of India in many ways tried to cut the independent India from the ethos of India and create a state on basis of British colonial structure. The biggest casualty in this was moral and ethical fabric that had sustained the country since ages and gave it its character. Naturally, even in post Independence era there had been little efforts to stop this decline of national character. And though challenges to these imposed values manifested in various forms starting from opposition to Hindu code bill, cow slaughter, Emergency, environment destruction and most recently the Ram Janmabhumi movement; the dominant power structure of the new republic of India (supported by a sympathetic world order) never undertook deep introspections.

These mass movements were violently crushed. It is to credit of pacific if gullible dharmics that this violence was not countered by violence. The fear of ruling elite was genuine because any such movement could have effortlessly shaken the weak foundation of political leadership of an artificial republic! And even Gandhiji would have never sided with Indian Government on these issues.